Blurred Lines

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Fernandez explains why Obama making speeches about red lines in Syria or Ukraine is a bad thing:

“During the height of the Cold War it was believed that having to emphasize the obvious represented a failure of policy. Deterrence had to be self-evident; a daily thing. You didn’t go on the air to issue bloodcurdling warnings. You didn’t have to because stability was there, part of the normal like the air or the earth. The Russian president only had to look at the his daily briefing to know that the USAF was flying and hence that the day could begin as peacefully as the previous one. . . . When an American president has to issue veiled warnings to Vladimir Putin — say something that Putin should know as second nature — then something terrible has happened. Some upset has occurred. A thing that was previously there to keep the floor level has gone missing. Why else should President Obama have to make a pointless observation on TV to communicate something that Putin should know from the moment he puts on his socks in the morning?”

Obviously, the thing that has gone missing is backbone.  Putin knows Americans lack the will to fight a war for Ukraine and that Obama’s threats are meaningless bluster.  That’s a destabilizing change in the geo-political world, it invites behaviors previously kept locked down.  China gets wind of this and realizes the implications, Obama’s Pivot To The Far East might be in jeopardy.

Joe Doakes

One of the most important things Reagan did to face off the Soviets (via their Polish communist puppets) in 1981 was not to warn anyone about anything; it was to invite an asylum-seeking ambassador to the White House.  It showed resolve – Reagan poked a finger in the commies’ eye, both nuanced and very, very in the eye.

That was a shot across the bow.

12 thoughts on “Blurred Lines

  1. Putin took the measure of Obama the man and found an indecisive juvenile. The next 34 months are going to make the Carter administration look positively stellar.

  2. kel, that is a very scary thought. Since the Democratic corrupt cabal that sacrificed the Benghazi embassy, I fear that all of our embassies are in peril, especially in countries that already hate us.

  3. As National Review said last week……it’s Cold War Part 2. Ex-KGB vs ex-Harvard prom decorating committee.

    Kel. I agree. As much as we like to pick on Carter, he did have few good qualities. He got the deregulation ball rolling. He oversaw a weak, demoralized national defense, but he was a veteran who didn’t loath our armed forces like this BIlly Ayres disciple does. And just the character. Carter was (is) a liberal Christian (okay, and a bit anti-semitic), but I see Obama as an Atheist who dislikes Christianity. Hence doing things like using Obamacare to go after Christian owned businesses.

  4. Obama’s response to the Soviets Russians invading the Ukraine will be to intensify his war on the 48% of Americans who didn’t vote for him.
    When Obama declares “Und Sturm, brich los!” from the White House, he looks West, not East.

  5. Don’t count him out yet. He still hasn’t broken out the brown leather bomber jacket with the cool patch on it. It shows he means business. Just like Dukakis in his tank …

  6. I’m waiting for the WH to release the photo Obama skeet-shooting photo with the shotgun replaced by an RPG.

    The more the President talks, the weaker he sounds. He didn’t need 90 minutes on the phone; he simply needed to tell Putin to back off, or else he’d send Michelle over there to eat his face.

  7. It is rather refreshing to have an international crisis based upon actual state(s) on state contention, nationalism and territorial ambitions. These are the familiar old themes that formed the basis of one hell of a lot of world history. One might think the foreign policy establishment would be pleased to take a breather from the insanities of ethereal and stateless religious fanaticism and terrorism. Now we have actual addresses with people in suits and ties.

    I just don’t see this particular fight rising to the level of risking American money, prestige, and (certainly not) lives.

  8. Ah ha, Emery, you’ve fallen into the trap! You’ve begun to think about it. Turn back now, before it’s too late and you become Libertarian!

    If sending US dollars and troops to Ukraine isn’t in the United States national interest, how about Afghanistan? Iraq? Israel? Continue down that road and soon you’ll be thinking about entangling alliances versus peaceful commerce with all. And when you get to that point, you can start asking “If we’re scrapping the A-10 because we will never need a tank-breaker to fight Soviet tanks in, say, Ukraine, then what war Will we be fighting?”

    That way lies madness.

  9. “One of the most important things Reagan did to face off the Soviets (via their Polish communist puppets) in 1981 was not to warn anyone about anything; it was to invite an asylum-seeking ambassador to the White House. It showed resolve – Reagan poked a finger in the commies’ eye, both nuanced and very, very in the eye.”
    Be careful Mitch, Obama is probably thinking about inviting a few Chechens.

  10. It’s worth noting, per Mitch’s older post on the subject, that Reagan didn’t just have the defectors over for brunch. He walked them into the White House himself, and unlike the guy who illegally tells Marines to do so, held the umbrella for them. The current guy isn’t just one who hasn’t read the book Kel references, but is woefully ignorant of Teddy Roosevelt and “speak softly and carry a big stick.” He’s got diplomacy backwards.

Leave a Reply